Macs don't have viruses?

A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
Macs don't get viruses.

Is this true? Or is he kidding me?

Martin C.E.

He's full of sh!t !

There are infectors on MACs, just not as many target that platform.

Dave

"Martin C.E." <> wrote in message news:93FDA7FB6660B835A@130.133.1.4...
| A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
| Macs don't get viruses.
|
| Is this true? Or is he kidding me?

David H. Lipman

Ja,

There are quite a few and more often than not more likely to cause larger
scale damage - i mean, less virii which are more deadly as more can be
achieved on Unix based platforms.... mind you, to date... if my MSc
lecturers are correct, then Linux in general has only ever had 4 known
viruses... might bee bull$hit

J J

"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:aCjbb.6327$...
> He's full of sh!t !
>
> There are infectors on MACs, just not as many target that platform.
>
> Dave
>
> ... some people call it security thru obscurity.
>

Dudhorse

In article <aCjbb.6327$>, David H. Lipman
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in part:

> There are infectors on MACs, just not as many target that platform.

....and we might see a substantial rise in Mac infections as Unix-based
OSX gains popularity.

Nigel

>
> Dave
>
> "Martin C.E." <> wrote in message
> news:93FDA7FB6660B835A@130.133.1.4...
> | A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
> | Macs don't get viruses.
> |
> | Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
>
>

--
"It is criminal to steal a purse, daring to steal
a fortune, a mark of greatness to steal a crown.
The blame diminishes as the guilt increases."
-- Schiller

Nigel Blatheringstock

Hi,

The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.

Regards, Ron AF Greve.



"Martin C.E." <> wrote in message
news:93FDA7FB6660B835A@130.133.1.4...
> A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
> Macs don't get viruses.
>
> Is this true? Or is he kidding me?

Moonlit

"Moonlit" <> wrote in message
news:3f6de328$0$58698$...
> Hi,
>
> The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then
it
> becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the
reason
> MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is
worse
> thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
> impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.
>
> Regards, Ron AF Greve.
>
>
>
> "Martin C.E." <> wrote in message
> news:93FDA7FB6660B835A@130.133.1.4...
> > A friend of mine is very proud of his Mac and makes the claim that
> > Macs don't get viruses.
> >
> > Is this true? Or is he kidding me?
>
>
There are some number of Mac specific viruses; I think the number is around
40 to 50. Mac's can receive macro viruses which will infect Word, Excel and
Power Point (assuming they have imbedded macros) files. By and large though,
because the operating system isn't built on a house of cards (dll files),
it's much less susceptible to malicious coding. Too, the Mac Operating
System isn't licensed the way Windows is and that may be a factor, as well.
If there were more software applications available for Mac's, I'd turn in
these Windows boxes in a heart-beat.

optikl

In article <3f6de328$0$58698$>,
Moonlit <> wrote:
:The more popular a system is the more virusses it will have (because then it
:becomes more interesting to write it in the first place). This is the reason
:MS based systems have the most virusses not because the technology is worse
:thann *nix like systems. A virus writer obviously wants to have maximum
:impact, therefore he writes his stuff for the most popular OS.

That's a fallacy.

To quote myself from another posting in another group a month ago:

Microsoft until a year ago had a policy of emphasizing
features over security. Read Gate's interview with a German
computer magazine a few years ago: he outright said that people
should not obtain MS software upgrades expecting bugs to be fixed,
because "no-one buys security" so MS changes were aimed at new
features and any bug fixes were incidental.

Microsoft has now implimented a policy of security-first, but
you don't reverse 15+ years of bad coding in just one year.
Windows is *huge* (something like 55 million lines) and is not
internally well compartimentalized. Retrofitting security seldom
works: if it isn't designed in from the beginning, you're probably
better to re-write the whole thing.

Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD, the authors of which
take pride in security, and whom have spent years specifically
designing and testing for security. With all these exploits being
exposed over the years, less than half a dozen of them have applied
to OpenBSD. And the OpenBSD people keep actively thinking about how
they could do better. It's hard to say, though, how well Apple is
carrying those security concerns over into its customized version.
--
How does Usenet function without a fixed point?

Walter Roberson

(Walter Roberson) :

>That's a fallacy. [...]
>Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD [...]
.... [and that's why there are fewer viruses, to make it short]

This is not a good argument, for historical reasons.

There was less viruses for Mac even when MacOS was not Unix-based,
and, according to MrSandman, an excellent virus coder who coded a few
bugs for Mac, DOS and Win32, it was actually much easier to code
viruses for for Mac than for PCs. But most virus writers didn't care
(or didn't have a Mac).

So obviously the popularity of a computer system has an impact on the
number of viruses written. If you want to make headlines (and that's
the goal of some coders), you need a certain critical mass.

--
Guillermito
http://www.guillermito2.net

Guillermito

Walter Roberson wrote:

> Mac OS X, though, is based upon OpenBSD, the authors of which
> take pride in security, and whom have spent years specifically
> designing and testing for security. With all these exploits being
> exposed over the years, less than half a dozen of them have applied
> to OpenBSD. And the OpenBSD people keep actively thinking about how
> they could do better. It's hard to say, though, how well Apple is
> carrying those security concerns over into its customized version.

www.openbsd.org
Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!


I dropped windblows about two monthes ago and have been useing FreeBSD. I
Couldn't be happier, It's super secure and very stable. Not to mention you
have a whole world of free software..BSD also has a port system that has
thousands of programs.

Don't have to worry about viruses or Trojans, the good points go on and on..

Tommy